Theological Noncognitivism - Re: Re: Why Atheism?

Brief proof of strong atheism.

For a more detailed explanation (courtesy of Franc28's website):
http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/argument_from_noncognitivism/

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• strong
• atheism
• theological
• noncognitivism
• george
• h.
• smith
• ignosticism
• burden
• of
• proof

[EdwinMcCravy1]

You're not a 'seasoned' theological noncognitivist "TN". You're an atheist. No true TN would utter the sound "disprove the existence of God" as you do very early on. No true TN would even write or utter "God" outside of quotation marks -- or outside of implied quotation marks if spoken-- and then only to refer to the three alphabet letters consisting of capital "G", lower case "o", and lower case "d" written in a row in that order, by those who are not TNs. .

[XOmniverse]

@EdwinMcCravy1 Lol.

[HugNow]

"brief proof of strong atheism"

You have no idea what a "proof" is. All you have "proven" is that you are agnostic.

[HugNow]

@XOmniverse no, actually the person that resorts to name calling since he has no logical debate, that is the person who is the problem

[jimpsky]

TNC=god is not defined as a rational thing

It is a mistake to draw any conclusions from TNC.

It simply states 1 divided by zero = undefined. Nothing further can be said about undefined.

To say it makes for strong atheism is a whopper with double cheese (blunder). TNC destroys the term atheism as atheism is based on god being defined.

[XOmniverse]

@Sofiaaamichelle No substance to your comment; just a bunch of empty assertions and insults.

[ikantianthink]

To help you a little, meaning, argued by many, is given by the assignment of a truth-value to a given proposition. For example, 1 + 1 = 2 is a statement that has meaning; but x + y = z is a statement that does not have meaning. Thus, the latter does not have meaning, because it is not true or false.

Also, for the record, Baruch Spinoza held the view that God is everywhere - it's not a silly claim at all. Actually, it's extremely complex. I suggest you read up on Spinoza's argument for monism.

[ikantianthink]

Wow...you have just butchered a series of views including non-cognitivism. Please make the effort to rigorously study the views you are advocating before you advocate them publicly. That is, because you are confused and you are confusing everyone else as well.

[OnlyHereNow]

I didn't know what "ignosticism" or "theological noncognitvism" was until just a couple of days ago when I ran across it on wikipedia. But I have been arguing with my friends from this position for a long time. I always say the word "god" is a nonsense word along with any concept that refers to it. To have any meaningful discourse about "god" you must define it, but how can you define something that is supposed to be infinite? Therefore there is no meaningful approach to the subject of "god".

[SPACKlick]

@HugNow No, he has shown he is Ignostic. Learn your terms.

[junior00bacon00chee]

YES.

the word doesn't point to anything. no one can say what it means for "god" to "exist" so there's no argument to even be had, no clear hypothesis to assess.

great video.